I just had a chat about Rolex, their innovations, the credit they deserve, etc..
And had quite different opinions during the discussion.
For the most knowledgeable of you, is Rolex actually that great and it's a fact, or are they just very desired?
I just had a chat about Rolex, their innovations, the credit they deserve, etc..
And had quite different opinions during the discussion.
For the most knowledgeable of you, is Rolex actually that great and it's a fact, or are they just very desired?
While I haven't owned every brand, I can say that most Rolex watches I have had just kept keeping good time for years with no issue. unlike Omega, Seiko and a few others, I've never had one just stop, yet!
I did have a Submariner that had not been serviced in over 21 years, and that was still keeping time to 1 second a day, with great amplitude!
There are lots of comparisons of movement strip downs, and most (with the exception of a couple of movements, or parts within them) say that the Rolex movements aren't the prettiest finished, but are generally very robust.
Mass produced professional tool watches. They are desired because you can't buy them (human nature to want what we can't have) and they do have incredible residuals, in some cases double or more what you paid.
Think of this, if you could walk into any AD and buy any Rolex at list price there and then and the minute you left the store the Watch lost 25% of its value - would people still be as keen to own one.
Don't get me wrong, they are great watches, but there is better out there and most of the Rolex hype probably has little to do with the actual watches themselves.
They make good watches, but they're overhyped.
They're not the top of the horological tree and there are direct competitors who are cheaper and more freely available.
They've just managed to get an image of ultra desirability (effective marketing, you could argue) and that has driven demand that outstrips supply (for whatever reason) for some models, which has just increased the hype even further.
Good watches at RRP, but good luck finding one of the sought after models at that price.
If you just want a rock solid reliable watch, buy a G-Shock (not that I ever would :biggrin:)
M
Our watchmaker at work describes them as tractors. Rudimentary time proven movements which just run and run and run.
We dont see many in for repair because something has gone wrong, mainly for maintenance services or a polish. I cannot say the same for other brands.
Personally, I think theyre great and would 100% suggest one as an only watch.
That only really accounts for the 'Professional' range though. My wife wants a Rolex, there's a nice selection of ones she likes in our local AD window and she wouldn't know what a Tool Watch was if it hit her on the head. Most people don't know about the supply issues, desirability of certain models or resale values. They just know Rolex is a luxury brand, and they cost a lot.
As for the original question, yes they make some of the most reliable watches on the market, and no it's not just marketing, they rarely mention reliability in their marketing - they're lifestyle focussed brand, aligned to human achievement.
https://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/...-14270-part-1/
https://www.timezone.com/2002/09/16/...-14270-part-2/
By the way Rolex are so anal that im sure i read they planned to sue this reviewer a new orifice for having the gall to give his honest opinion.
Agreed. Although some modern Rolex I have with the 3235 movement - two had to be tweaked at RSC to get them to run within the quoted +-2sec/day. In the scheme of things - they are well proven robust movements, some of my watches are rather 'thoroughbred' - better some would say - so I treat with more care. The Rolex - industrial by comparison.
I’ve not had any issues with Rolexes so far, touch wood. I’ve had a few issues with other brands/movements.
Definitely echo the workhorse sentimentality, but with iconic design and very good finishing. The marketing largely follows the substance for me.
Omega is not less reliable.
Lol, these threads are laugh a minute. Some people parroting the same drivel day in and out.
And thanks OP for a very ‘original’ question. We had never thought of this before you joined:-)
- - - Updated - - -
Lol, these threads are laugh a minute. Some people parroting the same drivel day in and out.
And thanks OP for a very ‘original’ question. We had never thought of this before you joined:-)
Fixed for accuracy.
Bought my first one (and the only one I will still have when I go into a care home) back in 1981 - for the design and engineering in that GMT-Master. Yes, I was swayed by the advertising campaigns in National Geographic and the endorsements by famous people - but as I said to colleagues who couldn’t believe that expenditure at the time - “No - this is a classic timepiece, the design, the engineering...............”
In the intervening decades, it has cost very little in servicing, albeit a lot of that was done when Rolex et all - provided support for a token sum, rather than their more mercenary attitude nowadays.
It’s now a 40yr-old watch, and gives me the same satisfaction today, as it did when I bought it.
(Might have to pass it on to my nephew when I go into a care home - in case they nick it when I am doo-lally).
But are they as good as a Grand Seiko?
I doubt you can build a world-class brand in any field without high levels of performance and reliability. Thats what buyers tend to want. And Rolex does perform. It’s the brand I would always recommend.
Now, if Mick Never-sell-a-Rolex P. can have a final word on the subject, we cal lay this thread to rest.
A friend of mine services watches for a living and cannot speak too highly of the modern Rolex movements, which have apparently been designed with long-term reliability in mind and to make servicing quicker and easier. Makes a lot of sense.
Just a shame about almost every other aspect, really... :friendly_wink:
Rolex’s are solid and reliable. Even when very old.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have two Seiko 5’s that are from the 80’s. They’ve been abused badly. Still work never serviced and still tell the time. I never measure in seconds just minutes. They’re fine. My Milgauss needs a service.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
So are 60s Omegas, Seikos, and stuff you’ve never heard of with AS movements.......when you work on watches it provides a totally different perspective.
Generally, any half- decent watch will continue to perform well if it’s maintained, lubrication is the key. Trust me, I don’t make this up.
Roger W Smith wears one, what’s good for him ...
Interesting read, on the flipside, it does proove that decoration doesnt make a robust movement, and it really is a case of dimishing returns paying for extreme level of hand finishing that only loupe carrying nerds may have a passing interest in (and even then, probably can’t tell the difference between hand and machine anglage”)
God only knows how much Rolex would charge if they decided to jump on the the display back highly decorated movement route.
Can’t fault my two for time keeping. Ones 36 years old with a service a few years back and the other 11 years old with no history and it’s running spot on! Both better than my omega PO which had a service in 2017
I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the PO is running with better precision than a 36 yr old Rolex! With careful regulation ( that’s the hard part) the PO would give excellent results, I’m not a fan of Omega co- axials but the precision is excellent......or it should be!
With careful regulation I can make my 1967 Omega Constellation keep time to within 1-2 secs/ day, adjustment to optimise positional agreement followed by careful regulation will make any good quality watch run well provided it’s in good condition.
Rolex are very good but so are plenty of other watches, if we turn the clock back to the 60s I think the Omega chronometer movements used in Constellations were every bit as good, possibly better.
I've often thought that the 904L steel is a feature that sets Rolex above similar competitors, but then again, perhaps I've been sucked in by the marketing as I can't recall seeing very many rusty watches...
I’ve never understood why people think that 904L is somehow better than 316 stainless steel. Yes, it has a slightly higher chromium content so it’s a little shinier, but the higher chrome content also makes those susceptible to allergies, more likely to develop an allergy to chrome and therefore be unable to wear any stainless steel watch.
One of the things that Rocco always said when I chatted with him at Watchworks, was that Rolex movements were made to be maintained. The architecture of the movement allowed for utterly an relialbe strip, re-assembly and lubrication.
There was never any question of having to fettle this, adjust that, allow for the other.
His opinion was that the maintainability of the design was a considerable contributing factor to their reliability.
Thank you to all of you who started to give a bit of an answer to the question, it's really appreciated.
I asked this question for a simple reason: everytime you hear rolex, most people are going all the way into an emotional side, preaching rolex like the bible based on nothing but rumours, and their perception of the brand.
Everyone telling you to get a rolex just tells you it's great, bottom line. I want to know if it's true, and I want to know why. Not because they made great ads, I mean what is actually inside which is making it quality.
Everytime I read on the matter, it goes this way, emotional and truths getting out of nowhere, hence why I tried to start this one.
I heard a forum was a place for discussion, so I am trying to discuss.
If some feel like it had been done plenty of times, or "you're just trying to get to the sales corner etc...", just don't stop at this thread, go and preach your absolute truth to someone else, you who are more legit than me because you have more posts...
If you have something to say on the matter, say it, I'm eager to learn more about it, if you've got nothing to say on the matter, go use your time more wisely
Now, what's interesting for me, is the feedbacks of people who have an experience themselves on the matter, long term owners who have been wearing the watch instead of keeping it in a box for value, the watchmakers who see what's going on inside of the watch and actually can talk about it, or people who have been discussing with watchmakers etc...
That's interesting and good to know!
The marketing around rolex, the luxury aspect, prestige, icon etc... I am not really bothered about it, if anything, it's making me want to get away from it.
But if the movement really is made to be reliable, accessible to work on it, well thought about, then it is starting to get my attention!
It seems like quite often, people are mentioning long intervals between two services, but so is the case for the seiko 7s26 movement for example.
That would be interesting to know if such long term seiko owners have been noticing the accuracy was still there, or if it still runs but totally off the tolerances
I've read on these allergy problems because of the higher level of chromium yes.
You can hardly fault 316 stainless steel for corrosion in normal conditions of use, so I'm not personally too bothered about the 904 argument. Just like I'm not bothered about the use of white gold for the sake of avoiding corrosion marks on hands and indices, too me it's more for aesthetic purposes than actually just be able to tell the time in all conditions
Other end of the spectrum in every sense, Vostok are pretty reliable, well consistent anyway, and the manufacturers advise they only need servicing every decade...though tbf I've not owned any long enough to test that but I've got a couple that are still stuttering away consistently after 4, 5 years of very hard use.
It's quite likely you could say the same of omega or another big swiss brand, if they're still here after more than a century, they must be doing something well indeed.
And yet rolex seems to be the one mentioned as the absolute best. I'm aware of this statement, but I want to know facts about it, so it's more than just a battle of opinions
The facts are that Rolex make very good, very reliable, accurate watches in the middle tier of watch making. This is backed up by the large number still in existence today and performing well. The movements are simple and easy to maintain and Rolex are largely helpful in servicing for the majority of people who want their watch to look and perform as new (ignoring collectors like us who like originality).
Rolex marketing has been very good and now people associate them with a luxury lifestyle - a distinct change from the exciting lifestyle they used to promote; this combined with the above result in a desirable product. It also helps that Rolex styling is quite conservative and is more of an evolutionary process than revolutionary, so they are instantly recognisable for most people with a passing interest in watches.
As mentioned here, I would presume / confirm that Omega (and others) produce equally good watches that perform just as well if not better, it could be argued that the new co-ax movements are technically better (for minimal performance gains). Omegas styling has always been a bit more Avant Garde and some watches have dated horribly. This along with a slightly less effective marketing programme mean Rolex has the upper hand. Are Rolex better watches with more reliable movements? I do not think so.
They are fantastic watches, solid, reliable and a great place to park money. I'm not a fan of the newer ceramic stuff as I think they've strayed more into the blingy luxury market, but having said that they are still just as solid as before. I don't deem them to be special, and there's no real craftsmanship that goes into them when compared with GS,AP,PP etc. They have fantastic marketing though, I think everyone knows what a Rolex is.